WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Thursday offered rare criticism of Vladimir Putin, urging the Russian leader to “STOP!” after a deadly barrage of attacks on Kyiv, Ukraine's capital. “I am not happy with the Russian strikes on KYIV. Not necessary, and very bad timing. Vladimir, STOP! 5000 soldiers a week are dying.” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform. “Lets get the Peace Deal DONE!” Russia struck Kyiv with an hourslong barrage of missiles and drones. At least 12 people were killed and 90 were injured in the deadliest assault on the city since last July. Trump’s frustration is growing as a U.S.-led effort to get a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia has not made progress. The comments about Putin came after Trump lashed out at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Wednesday and accused him of prolonging the “killing field” by refusing to surrender the Russia-occupied Crimean Peninsula as part of a possible deal. Russia illegally annexed that area in 2014. With his assertion that Putin demonstrated “very bad timing" with the massive attack, Trump appeared to suggest that the Russian leader was doing himself no favors toward achieving the Kremlin's demand that any peace agreement include Russia keeping control of Crimea as well as Ukrainian territory in the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions it has seized since invading in February 2022. Later Thursday during an Oval Office meeting with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, Trump said that Crimea was taken from Ukraine without a fight. He also noted that annexation of the Black Sea peninsula happened under President Barack Obama's watch. Asked what Putin is doing now to help forge a peace deal, Trump responded, “stopping taking the whole country, pretty big concession.” But the notion is one that Ukraine and much of Europe have fiercely pushed back against, arguing that Russia pausing a land grab is hardly a concession. Zelensky has repeated many times that recognizing occupied territory as Russia's is a red line for Ukraine. He noted Thursday that Ukraine had agreed to a U.S. ceasefire proposal 44 days ago as a first step to a negotiated peace, but that Moscow's attacks had continued. Trump’s criticism of Putin is notable because Trump has repeatedly said Russia is more willing than Ukraine to get a deal done. “I didn’t like last night,” Trump said of Russia’s massive attack on Kyiv. “I wasn’t happy with it.” In his dealings with Zelensky and Putin, Trump has focused on which leader has leverage. Putin has “the cards” and Zelensky does not, Trump has said repeatedly. At the same time, the new Republican administration has taken steps toward a more cooperative line with Putin, for whom Trump has long shown admiration. Trump in his meeting with Norway's Gahr Støre discussed the war in Ukraine, U.S. tariffs and other issues. Norway, a member of NATO and strong supporter of Ukraine, shares a roughly 123-mile (198-kilometer) border with Russia. Gahr Støre said “both parties have to know that they have to deliver." He also suggested that Trump is pushing the two sides to come to an agreement. “To move towards an end of this war, U.S engagement is critical, and President Trump made that possible," he said. "That is clear” Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron said Putin should “stop lying” when he claims to want “peace” while continuing to bomb Ukraine. “There is only one answer we are waiting for: Does President Putin agree to an unconditional ceasefire?” said Macron during a visit to Madagascar. Macron added that “the Americans’ anger should focus on just one person: President Putin.” The French Foreign Ministry also offered measured pushback on Trump's criticism of Zelensky over the Ukrainian's stance on Crimea. During talks last week in Paris, U.S. officials presented a proposal that included allowing Russia to keep control of occupied Ukrainian territory as part of a deal, according to a European official familiar with the matter. The proposal was discussed again Wednesday during talks with U.S., European, and Ukrainian officials. “The principle of Ukraine’s territorial integrity is not something that can be negotiated,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Christophe Lemoine said. “This was the position taken last week and reiterated yesterday in London in a meeting of a similar format.” Asked whether France agreed with Trump’s comments that Ukraine’s position was to blame for prolonging the war, Lemoine said Ukrainians showed they are open to negotiations while Russia continues its strikes. “We rather have the impression that it is the Russians who are slowing down the discussions,” he said. The White House announced Tuesday that Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, would visit Moscow this week for a new round of talks with Putin about the war. It would be their fourth meeting since Trump took office in January. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth met on Thursday with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who also held talks with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump's national security adviser, Michael Waltz. Leaders from the 32-member alliance are set to meet in the Netherlands in two months. Trump has pushed them to significantly step up defense spending. In 2023, as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine entered its second year, they agreed that all allies should spend at least 2% of gross domestic product on their military budgets. Estimates in NATO's annual report released Thursday showed that 22 allies had reached that goal last year, compared with a previous forecast of 23. “But clearly with 2%, we cannot defend NATO territory,” Rutte told reporters at the White House following the meeting. “It has to be considerably higher.” —Petrequin reported from Paris. Associated Press writer Lorne Cook in Brussels contributed to this report.

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox. President Donald Trump knows exactly who to blame for the tanking economy: Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, who has not acceded to Trump’s whims to lower interest rates to goose the economy. For just about everyone else—including Jay “Mr. Too Late” Powell, in Trump’s latest nickname of contempt—the culprit is just as clear: Trump himself, who has threatened, implemented, suspended, swapped, and escalated tariffs like so many wallpaper swatches. The White House is treating the debate as if it is not quite so one-sided, while also trying to act as if every new statement from Trump or Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent represents a coherent policy. For a President obsessed with the stock market, the rebuke from investors is particularly stinging. Since Trump took office, stocks have tanked, the bond market has gone wobbly, and the dollar is weaker. Just Tuesday, the International Monetary Fund revised its forecast, upping the odds of a recession to 37% from its previous marker of 25%. That’s more conservative than the assessment of Americans—42% of whom think the economy is already in recession or economic depression, according to Gallup’s latest polling. This all helps explain why Trump in the last 36 hours seems to have climbed down from a cliff of his own making—by saying he has “no intention” of firing Powell, a few days after posting “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!” (To be clear: whether a President can depose the head of the Fed is completely untested. Markets are unequivocally terrified of Trump even trying to do so.) Meanwhile, Bessent told a closed-door speech to JPMorgan Chase that he expects a de-escalation of the trade war with China, where U.S. policy is adding 145% to imports and China is tacking on an extra 125%. “Neither side thinks the status quo is sustainable,” Bessent said in Tuesday remarks that leaked as expected and sent markets surging. (The Bessent Effect is real, as Bloomberg notes; on days when he’s headlining the economy, markets move upward.) Here’s the thing: Investors crave certainty. That’s why the United States is the far-and-away top destination for foreign direct investment, logging more than $5 trillion in holdings from non-Americans. To put that in perspective, that’s roughly 10 cents of every FDI dollar invested globally, according to IMF data. On Tuesday, Wall Street rallied on Trump’s and Bessent’s remarks, but you talk to anyone in Washington in touch with major investors and it’s clear no one is taking those statements as reliable for more than a few days. For now, things look to continue racing in the wrong direction. The IMF forecast downgraded U.S. economic growth to a meager 1.8% this year, down from an expected 2.7%. (In Biden’s final calendar year in office, the economy grew by 2.8%.) Trump, too, seemed to realize things are going poorly, but he continues to blame Powell, who could lower borrowing rates and juice the flagging economy. Such a move, though, risks nudging inflation, which is a persistent worry. Core inflation—which excludes highly volatile food and energy prices—is at its lowest rate since March 2021. On Wednesday, Bessent used a gathering on the sidelines of an IMF event in Washington to pay lip-service to Trump’s unique brand of grievance, while still trying to calm markets. “The IMF was once unwavering in its mission of promoting global monetary cooperation and financial stability. Now it devotes disproportionate time and resources to work on climate change, gender, and social issues,” Bessent said. He also blamed “mission creep” for not doing more to keep the global economy in equilibrium—often to the United States’ advantage. In a follow-up meeting with financial reporters, Bessent said de-escalation with China is a priority but the two countries’ leaders are not in talks, and a deal cannot be negotiated with underlings. He also hinted that Trump’s team would see it as a victory if a general framework comes into place without any hard agreement. The White House continues to sell all this as a hiccup that won’t stop the ushering in of a new golden age of manufacturing as firms realize they’d rather invest in factories here than pay the import taxes. The real culprit, in the West Wing’s mind, remains Powell. Or at least he is a viable place to offload the blame. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Tuesday told reporters that the Fed was needlessly keeping rates steady “in the name of politics, rather in the name of what’s right for the American economy.” Among those who watch the Fed and the billions of dollars it moves on Wall Street, the story the White House is telling doesn’t match reality. And as investors brace for the bill to come due from Trump’s standoff with, well, the world, the Administration's constant messaging shifts are beginning to drown out the messages themselves.

In a Louisiana Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility, Mahmoud Khalil remained confined as his wife gave birth to their son on Monday—over 1,000 miles away from the hospital room where he would have been standing. The separation wasn't due to logistical impossibility but a denied request for temporary release, highlighting what some experts describe as a pattern of using family separation as leverage against specific communities. "This was a purposeful decision by ICE to make me, Mahmoud, and our son suffer," Dr. Noor Abdalla said in a statement the day she gave birth. "My son and I should not be navigating his first days on earth without Mahmoud." Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student and member of Columbia University Apartheid Divest, was arrested on March 8th following his participation in campus protests against the war in Gaza. His subsequent placement in ICE custody made his deportment case the most prominent in the new Trump administration. But advocates say that keeping Khalil from the birth of his son adds familiar, and cruel, elements from the president’s first term. Though Khalil's case is still unfolding, his situation echoes a history of family separation policies that created a major scandal in the first Trump administration, and appears to have blended with the President’s track record of hostility toward Muslims, according to experts. Trump's "zero tolerance" border policy enforced family separations at the Mexican border in 2018, a year after the newly installed President imposed a "Muslim ban," a series of policies and executive orders preventing families from seven predominantly Muslim countries from, among other things, reuniting on American soil. “ Family separation in particular is a very cruel policy tool that the Trump administration has relied on in both of his administrations,” says Yasmine Taeb, a human rights lawyer and progressive strategist who worked to undo the 2017 travel bans. “ In the case of Mahmoud Khalil, there's a reason he was sent to a detention center notorious for abuse thousands of miles away from his support system, from his wife, and now his newborn baby.” She pointed to other prominent cases: Rumeysa Öztürk, a Turkish national and Fulbright scholar pursuing her Ph.D. at Tufts University, was arrested by plainclothes ICE agents on March 25, 2025, near her home in Somerville, Massachusetts. Her detention followed the revocation of her student visa due to her part in pro-Palestinian activism, specifically co-authoring an op-ed in Tufts' student newspaper, according to the U.S. State Department. Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian green-card holder and student at Columbia University, was detained by ICE on April 14, 2025, during his naturalization interview in Colchester, Vermont. Mahdawi, who had organized pro-Palestinian protests on campus, became a legal permanent resident of the U.S. in 2015. “ The fact that Mahmoud, Mohsen, Rumeysa, and other students have been targeted simply for advocating for Palestinian rights should alarm and scare all of us,” Taeb said. The Trump Administration has repeatedly equated pro-Palestinian activism with anti-semitism—an equation challenged by the participation of Jewish students and activists among those protesting Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war. The war was sparked by the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel that resulted in 1,200 deaths and the kidnapping of more than 200 hostages; Israel’s retaliatory strikes have claimed more than 50,000 lives, a majority of them civilian, according to the figures from Hamas-controlled Palestinian health authorities called reliable by the U.S. and U.N. Muslims in the U.S. are wary not only of being cast as scapegoats, but of what can come with it. In the months following the September 11 attacks, hundreds of Muslim, Arab, and South Asian men were detained, some in what the Department of Justice later described as "unduly harsh" conditions. Many families had no information about their loved ones' whereabouts for weeks or months, worsened by communication blackouts that prevented contact via phone, mail or visiting. Beyond the political dimensions, family separation inflicts profound psychological harm, according to mental health professionals. “To be kept from your newborn child not by choice but by systemic barriers is a unique kind of heartbreak,” says Muna Egeh, a supervised intern psychotherapist for Ruh Care, an online therapy service focused on Muslim clients. “For Mahmoud Khalil, this isn’t just about immigration policy; it’s about missing a sacred, once-in-a-lifetime moment. The emotional toll of such separation can leave lasting wounds, not only for the parent but for the child whose first days begin without their father’s presence.” In Khalil's case, immigration authorities had discretion to grant temporary humanitarian release—a practice regularly employed for circumstances like family births or deaths—but chose not to exercise. “ICE’s cruelty is boundless,” said Baher Azmy, Legal Director of the Center of Constitutional Rights and attorney for Khalil. “Its small-minded refusal to grant Mahmoud and Noor the most basic human gesture, to care for each other in this pivotal life moment, is an extension of their vindictive and arbitrary decision to arrest and attempt to deport him. The humanity of Mahmoud and his family will, in the end, be what we all remember.” Dr. Abdalla connects her family's separation directly to Khalil's political activism. "ICE and the Trump administration have stolen these precious moments from our family in an attempt to silence Mahmoud's support for Palestinian freedom," she said. Civil liberties organizations have expressed concern about the implications on speech that the Constitution regards as protected. Trump warned in a White House fact sheet “to all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you. I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before.” For Dr. Abdalla, the focus remains on reuniting her family. "I will continue to fight every day for Mahmoud to come home to us," she said. "I know when Mahmoud is freed, he will show our son how to be brave, thoughtful, and compassionate, just like his dad."

When white smoke billowed out of the chimney of the Sistine Chapel on March 13, 2013, alerting the public that the 115 cardinal electors inside had concluded their voting, few members of the public might have expected the Catholic Church’s 266th Pope to be Jorge Mario Bergoglio. At 76, Bergoglio was considered too old to be included on most media lists of papabili, or likely candidates for Pope. Prior to his papacy, bishops and cardinals typically submitted their resignations at 75. And the cardinal electors, who have always elected one of their own ranks, have an age cap of 80. Hailing from Buenos Aires, Argentina, Bergoglio became the first Latin American Pope and the first non-European Pope in over 1,200 years. He was also the first Jesuit Pope—a Catholic religious order that emphasizes service to the marginalized. Upon his election, Bergoglio took the name Francis after Saint Francis of Assisi, who was known for his asceticism and ministry to the poor. Overall, Francis was regarded as less conservative than his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI. With Francis’ death on Monday, at age 88, up to 135 eligible cardinal electors will decide on his successor. One hundred and eight—or 80%—of them were appointed by Francis during his papacy. It’s a fact that has left some wondering if the late Pope essentially “packed the court” to guarantee a continuation of his legacy. But experts suggest it’ll be as difficult to predict as Francis’ own election was. “It’s very simplistic to say cardinals just vote along ideological lines as though they’re part of political parties,” Pattenden says. “That’s not how the Vatican works.” Pattenden also points to an Italian proverb: “After a fat Pope comes a thin one.” “The idea of that is essentially that the cardinals very often focus on what they didn’t like about the previous Pope, all the things they thought were his faults and flaws, and they look for someone who remedies those.” The first question on cardinals’ minds will be whether they want change or continuity. This conclave is already likely to be different from those in the past, however, Pattenden says. Firstly, it’s the largest number of eligible cardinal electors—in fact, it’s the first time that the number of eligible electors at a conclave has exceeded the traditional cap of 120, although Pattenden says it’s unlikely that the cap will be enforced. Secondly, the cardinals now are more geographically diverse than ever. In 2013, 51% of cardinal electors were European. Now, around 39% are, while around 18% come from the Asia-Pacific, 18% from Latin America and the Caribbean, 12% come from Sub-Saharan Africa, 10% from North America, and 3% come from the Middle East and North Africa. Francis played a big role in that shift. Of the 108 he appointed, 38% came from Europe, 19% from Latin America and the Caribbean, 19% from the Asia-Pacific, 12% from sub-Saharan Africa, 7% from North America, and 4% from the Middle East and North Africa. Francis appointed cardinals from 25 countries that had never before had one. His appointments include Chibly Langlois, the first cardinal from Haiti, Charles Maung Bo, the first cardinal from Myanmar, and Hyderabad Anthony Poola, the first of India’s Dalit caste. On many papabili lists, the range of candidates include several who would be historic firsts as pontiffs from Asia, such as Filipino Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, or Africa, such as Ghanaian Cardinal Peter Turkson. Francis prioritized inclusion within the Vatican, Pattenden explains, and so in appointing cardinals, he looked across the world, often to small Catholic communities that had not been represented before: He felt that “it shouldn’t just be the case that big, well-established, rich, old Catholic communities get representation all the time,” but ideologically, “Francis can’t necessarily have known how all of these new cardinals will think, certainly their colleagues won’t know—they may not even know themselves.” Carlos Eire, a professor of history and religious studies at Yale University, however, thinks it’s likely that those Francis appointed will indeed lean ideologically left, noting that Francis did not appoint many conservative bishops to the College of Cardinals and that, while geographic diversity was a priority of his, theological diversity was not. Francis, for example, appointed American Robert McElroy in 2022, who is known for his advocacy on immigration and the environment and inclusion of LGBTQ+ Catholics, while reportedly bypassing more conservative archbishops. “When it comes to religious issues,” says Eire, “it is also highly likely that they will lean away from traditionalism.” “Voting for a Pope is not much different from any other kind of voting. The voters have their preferences,” adds Eire. “The only difference between this conclave and the House of Representatives or the European Parliament is that the cardinals pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit.” But, Pattenden says, it could come down more to charisma, competence, and piety than to ideology. On that measure, the geographic diversity of the College of Cardinals could make this conclave particularly unpredictable. “They don’t know each other as well as previous groups of cardinals will have done, and that’s bound to have an impact,” Pattenden says. “When you have to focus on one person’s name to write down on that ballot paper, it may or may not be easier if you actually know the guy or if you’ve just met him a week or two before.” If the result of that favors better known cardinals, Pattenden says Tagle from the Philippines, who is known as one of the most charismatic figures in the college, or Pietro Parolin, who is the highest-ranking cardinal in the electing conclave, would be frontrunners. If neither of those two—or any other candidate—achieves the required two-thirds majority to win, it’s likely that cardinals “start casting a wider net,” says Pattenden, to candidates who may not have been their first choice. “It’s a very secretive process … The Church is very, very careful that we don’t really know what happened,” Pattenden says, and what reports do come out later are often still not verified. “This matters a lot in terms of the theology of the election: the idea is that God, through the Holy Spirit, comes down on the cardinals and inspires them and their choice. But the more that we know about what was said to who and who voted for what, the less plausible that idea is.”

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox. The knives are out for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. While top White House officials insist the growing questions surrounding the Defense Secretary's behavior is proof he's threatening the status quo, the sentiment across much of the capital is far less charitable. Amid the fallout of news that he shared military targets to a second group chat, this time from his personal phone and to family members, there is a growing sense that the former Fox News weekend host is poised to be one of the first senior members of the Administration to be shown the exit. The only real question at this point is the length of Trump’s fuse amid the constant pummeling Hegseth and others are facing for being so reckless with highly sensitive information that, in another timeline, could have cost Americans their lives. By Tuesday afternoon, it seemed this might well be a slow burn. The New York Times on Sunday published a bombshell story that revealed Hegseth last month shared flight schedules for F/A-18 Hornets en route to bomb Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen with his wife, brother, and personal lawyer. NBC News reported on Tuesday that Hegseth had shared that info after receiving it from a top U.S. general using a secure U.S. government system intended for sensitive and classified information. Privately, Republicans are bracing for further embarrassing disclosures in the wings, as first reported by NOTUS. Many in the party never really liked the former TV personality for the role of running the world’s largest employer. (The Department of Defense employs more than 3 million people in military or civilian roles.) His confirmation hearings dealt with reports of alcohol abuse, hush money to settle a sexual assault allegation, and organizational mismanagement with a veterans group. His confirmation vote was a dead tie in the Senate, requiring Vice President J.D. Vance to drag Hegseth across the finish line past unified Democratic opposition and nay votes from Sen. Mitch McConnell, the influential former Republican Leader, and Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine. Since breezing into the Pentagon with promises of de-woke-ifying and re-warrior-izing, Hegseth’s tenure hasn’t exactly been confidence inspiring. National security hawks in both parties are watching the Pentagon for daily dust-ups that shake America’s image and remake its top ranks. He was sharing bombing details on a first group chat that somehow included the top editor of The Atlantic, and then on another one with his family. His inner circle was dismantled last week, ostensibly over leaked information about a pending briefing on China for Elon Musk. And Hegseth’s top spokesman went rogue and published a highly critical assessment of the Secretary’s tenure: “In short, the building is in disarray under Hegseth’s leadership.” Hill Republicans are begrudgingly grateful that the news of the second group chat emerged while most are out of town, at home for a holiday work period that continues through this week. But several lawmakers have been using their best stage whisper to urge Leadership teams in the House and Senate that this sort of sloppy handling of sensitive information cannot become normalized. So far, just one Republican lawmaker—former Air Force General and current Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska—has put his name on pointed criticism of Hegseth but there is a sense that the time for choosing will come when Congress comes back next week. It’s going to get tougher to stay silent, especially as Democrats are planning a coordinated effort to suss out just how Trump administration officials are using third-party platforms like Signal and Gmail to potentially skirt keeping a full record of their correspondence. Yet even some Republicans tired of Hegseth are wary of seeing him pushed out. After all, as one Republican who helped Hegseth salvage his nomination told me, there is little reason to think Trump would turn to a polished pro for that role now, or that a quick confirmation process is in the offing. A Hegseth-run DOD may look positively orderly compared to what follows, some fear. At the White House, a tone of public defiance has settled in. Trump and Hegseth spoke just hours after the Times report went online Sunday and they seemed simpatico in a belief that the revelations were coming from disgruntled employees and so-called Deep State defenders of business as usual. But the contradiction was apparent for anyone willing to scratch the surface: the three public suspensions and one defection from the Pentagon’s top ranks were all, until very recently, Hegseth loyalists. It’s not clear that they would have been behind the leak about Hegseth’s chat history; and it’s worth noting that the White House has not disputed the accuracy of those stories, only the interpretation about just how bad they are. For his part, Hegseth returned to the morning show he hosted for years to bat away the furor, but noticeably did not deny the underlying story, either. “Once a leaker, always a leaker, often a leaker,” Hegseth said Tuesday. “I don’t have time for leakers. I don’t have time for the hoax press that peddles old stories from disgruntled employees.” Speaking to reporters on Tuesday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called the latest reports part of a “smear campaign” against a change agent and again denied reporting that says those close to Trump are looking for a replacement. Instead, she cast all of this as a betrayal—by the people who told the Times about the Signal group chat in the first place, suggesting they would be held to criminal account. "We are not going to tolerate individuals who leaked to the mainstream media, particularly when it comes to sensitive information,” Leavitt said. “The President stands strongly behind Secretary Hegseth and the change that he is bringing to the Pentagon. The results he has achieved thus far speak for themselves.” That may be the case at present, but betting on Trump to stay the course is seldom a good wager. Republicans who have spoken with the White House say Trump is committed to keeping Hegseth, although there is the long-running understanding that the President’s loyalty is inviolable until it isn’t. During his first term, Trump dumped just about anyone at any time—for bringing bad headlines, for getting headlines that were too good, for inching too close to the spotlight, or bumping Trump from the front page. This time, Trump seems determined not to give his critics a single win, doubling down when other Presidents would have ditched the trouble. (Remember when Barack Obama ditched the top general in Afghanistan for a series of disparaging comments to Rolling Stone about his team? Stanley McCrystal sure does.) So, for now, there is merely the constant glare on Hegseth, who seems to be atop a fast-flaking camp of defenders. Trump, who has made this his weekly Waterloo, has stood by Cabinet officials far longer with far less threatening incoming. Now, Washington is just waiting to see where a second-term Trump has parked his pain threshold.

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio unveiled a massive overhaul of the State Department on Tuesday, with plans to reduce staff in the U.S. by 15% while closing and consolidating more than 100 bureaus worldwide as part of the Trump administration's “America First” mandate. The reorganization plan, announced by Rubio on social media and detailed in documents obtained by The Associated Press, is the latest effort by the White House to reimagine U.S. foreign policy and scale back the size of the federal government. The restructuring was driven in part by the need to find a new home for the remaining functions of the U.S. Agency for International Development, an agency that Trump administration officials and billionaire ally Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency have dismantled. “We cannot win the battle for the 21st century with bloated bureaucracy that stifles innovation and misallocates scarce resources,” Rubio said in a department-wide email obtained by AP. He said the reorganization aimed to “meet the immense challenges of the 21st Century and put America First.” State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce echoed that sentiment, saying the “sweeping changes will empower our talented diplomats" but would not result in the immediate dismissal of personnel. “It’s not something where people are being fired today," Bruce told reporters Tuesday. "They’re not going to be walking out of the building. It’s not that kind of a dynamic. It is a roadmap. It’s a plan.” It includes consolidating 734 bureaus and offices down to 602, as well as transitioning 137 offices to another location within the department to "increase efficiency,” according to a fact sheet obtained by AP. There will be a “reimagined” office focused on foreign and humani Although the plan will implement major changes in the department’s bureaucracy and personnel, it is far less drastic than an alleged reorganization plan that was circulated by some officials over the weekend. Numerous senior State Department officials, including Rubio himself, denied that the plan was real. Work that had been believed targeted in that alleged leaked document survived — at least as bureau names on a chart — in the plan that Rubio released Tuesday. That includes offices for Africa affairs, migration and refugee issues, and democracy efforts. It was not immediately clear whether U.S. embassies were included in the installations slated for closing. The earlier reports of wholesale closings of embassies, especially in Africa, had triggered warnings about shrinking the U.S. diplomatic capacity and influence abroad. Some of the bureaus that are indeed expected to be cut in the new plan include the Office of Global Women's Issues and the State Department’s diversity and inclusion efforts, which have been eliminated government-wide under Trump. An office charged with surging expertise to war zones and other erupting crises will be eliminated, while other bureaus focused on human rights and justice will be scaled back or folded into other sections of the department. Daryl Grisgraber, a policy lead with humanitarian organization Oxfam America, said this development only creates more “uncertainty” about the United States' ability to contribute to humanitarian conflicts and will “only make the world a more unstable, unequal place for us all.” It is unclear if the reorganization would be implemented through an executive order or other means. The plans came a week after the AP learned that the White House’s Office of Management and Budget proposed gutting the State Department’s budget by almost 50% and eliminating funding for the United Nations and NATO headquarters. While the budget proposal was still in a highly preliminary phase and not expected to pass muster with Congress, the reorganization plan got an initial nod of approval from Republicans on Capitol Hill. “Change is not easy, but President Trump and Secretary Rubio have proposed a vision to remake the State Department for this century and the fights that we face today, as well as those that lie ahead of us,” Idaho Sen. Jim Risch, Republican chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement. Democrats, meanwhile, blasted the effort as the Trump administration's latest attempt to gut “vital components of American influence” on the world stage. “On its face, this new reorganization plan raises grave concerns that the United States will no longer have either the capacity or capability to exert U.S. global leadership, achieve critical national security objectives, stand up to our adversaries, save lives, and promote democratic values,” Hawaii Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz said. Some lawmakers said the move is a departure from the work Rubio supported as a senator. "The vital work left on Secretary Rubio’s cutting-room floor represents significant pillars of our foreign policy long supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, including former Senator Rubio — not ‘radical ideologies’ as he now claims,” said New York Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The proposed changes at the State Department come as the Trump administration has been slashing jobs and funding across agencies, from the Education Department to Health and Human Services. On foreign policy, beyond the destruction of USAID, the administration also has moved to defund so-called other “soft power” institutions like media outlets delivering objective news, often to authoritarian countries, including the Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Radio Free Asia and Radio/TV Marti, which broadcasts to Cuba. —Amiri reported from the United Nations and Lee from London.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has shone a spotlight on autism, pledging in a recent press conference to figure out the “cause” of autism and calling the increased incidence of the disorder a “tragedy.” But he and other members of the Trump Administration have also reduced funding available for autism research, imperiling key projects—some of which were midway through completion, according to scientists in the field. “Funding for autism research is actually disappearing at a time when we see the director of HHS talking a lot about autism as though they think it is important,” says Micheal Paige Sandbank, an autism researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Behind the scenes, they are taking a hammer to the whole apparatus for autism research.” The cuts come at a time when the incidence of autism is up; a study published April 17 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that one in 31 children studied had been diagnosed with autism, up from one in 150 in 2000. The Department of Education (DOE) slashed autism funding One of the biggest places where cuts have occurred is at the DOE, which the Trump Administration has vowed to close. A big funder of autism research has historically been the DOE’s Institute of Education Sciences, says Sandbank. But the institute, which has a budget of $800 million, was gutted in the Trump Administration’s layoffs, with only a skeleton staff remaining. Autism research at the institute focused on developing and evaluating school-based interventions to improve outcomes for students with autism. Many U.S. researchers who focus on autism and other disabilities—including Sandbank and Kristen Bottema-Beutel, a professor of special education at Boston College—had their doctoral studies funded by a development program within the DOE. The idea behind the grant is to train the next generation of special education teachers, speech language pathologists, and occupational therapists to work with autistic students in the classroom, as well as the professors teaching those therapists. The program was called the Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities—Preparation of Special Education, Early Intervention, and Related Services Leadership Personnel. But Bottema-Beutel, who applied for the grant in November, said she received an email on April 2 that the DOE would not fund the grant this year in order to ensure that the department’s 2025 grant competitions “align with the objectives established by the Trump Administration.” Bottema-Beutel and colleagues had wanted to fund 12 doctoral students with disability-related interests in a collaboration between Boston College, Boston University, and the University of Massachusetts Boston. Now, those positions won’t be funded, she says. The grant application took months to complete, and Bottema-Beutel says she’s hesitant to apply for more grants in her speciality, autism research. “It seems like a big risk to take at the time because it’s unclear if it's going to be funded,” she says. Charting My Path for Future Success, a DOE program, lost funding because of government cuts. It helped students with disabilities, including those with autism, transition from high school into college or work. A DOE spokesperson told NPR in April that Charting My Path had “questionable implementation” and that too much of the $43 million in funding was going to contractors, but some students were extremely upset that the program had disappeared, NPR reported, because it matched them with trained instructors who checked in with them and their families to assist in the transition from high school. The DOE did not provide a comment by publication time. But American Institute for Research, which oversaw Charting My Path for Future Success, confirmed that the program was "canceled for convenience by the federal government" on Feb. 10. "It was one of dozens of contracts that were canceled that day," said spokesperson Dana Tofig in an email. A gutted program at the National Science Foundation (NSF) Another canceled grant from the NSF funded autism programs in schools and universities. The Frist Center for Autism and Innovation at Vanderbilt University lost $7.7 million in funding because its grant application, which was initially approved, included the terms “inclusion” and “accessibility,” according to Jessica Schonhut-Stasik, who runs communications for the Frist Center and was also a student in the program. The program offered grants for neurodivergent students or people studying neurodivergent students, says Schonhut-Stasik. The grant also sponsored a summer summit for autistic students, says Schonhut-Stasik, who is herself autistic. “This is just so deeply sad,” she says. “To be given this money, to be told, ‘Here is the money to pursue your dreams,’ is just so big for any autistic person,” she says. The Department of Defense (DOD) cut autism funding DOD also funded a lot of autism research, Sandbank says, but a reorganization there has left future projects in jeopardy. The DOD funding was through something called Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs. In each of the last five years, the Autism Research Program under that bucket has received $15 million dollars, according to DOD press releases. The DOD studies autism in part because it affects children of military families. In 2025, though, a number of the same research programs received funding as they had in the past, including breast cancer research. But autism was not among the programs listed to receive funding in 2025 announcements. Because autism is not included, Sandbank, who was going to submit a grant for this funding, no longer plans to, she says. A spokesperson for the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs confirmed that autism is not one of the 12 research programs funded this year, but said that autism is included as a “topic area” for a separate bucket of funding, the Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program. There are more than 50 topics listed in that funding area, including autism. An abrupt halt at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) NIH is also a huge funder of autism research. But shifting priorities there have ended or delayed some of these projects, says David Mandell, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania who studies autism. The Trump Administration has begun to review and cancel grants that have what it deems diversity, equity, or inclusion terms in them because of a Trump executive order seeking to end what it called “radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing.” Grant applicants are being told, Mandell says, that their research no longer meets “agency priorities.” One public HHS document shows at least two autism grants canceled in the sweep: a project looking at biomarkers of late autism diagnosis in female and gender-diverse people, and one preventing suicide among autistic adults. There’s a problem with stopping researchers from looking at autism in trans adults, says Bottema-Beutel: they are overrepresented in the autistic population. “If you’re recruiting autistic people” for a study, she says, “there’s a large chance they’re also going to be trans people.” Projects funded by the NIH have also been delayed because the Trump Administration temporarily stopped travel, meetings, communication, and hiring at the NIH. Scholars meet on federal advisory committees to approve funding NIH research, but those meetings were paused in the early days of the Trump Administration. Though the meetings resumed in April, the delay has caused some universities to cancel positions for doctoral students this year because schools can’t guarantee them funding, says Mandell, of Penn. He had a grant that was supposed to be reviewed in February that is now being reviewed in April. “We are destroying a generation of researchers and clinicians, by either not accepting them or not having opportunities for them to pursue this kind of research,” he says. There’s also a huge backlog of meetings because they have to be posted in the Federal Register in advance, Mandell says, and new postings in the Federal Register were frozen by the Trump Administration since mid-January. Even though meetings can now resume, many haven’t been scheduled yet or have been pushed back months, he says. Other personnel cuts to departments like the National Institute of Mental Health, part of NIH, are slowing down the process of getting grants approved, Mandell says, because staff are overworked and unable to process the grants as quickly as usual. Overall, the slowdowns and changes are making it difficult for researchers like Mandell, to propose studies or plan at all. “Right now, there is no system in place—everything is in a constant state of flux,” he says. “I can’t plan a study if I have no idea if it will be consistent with the Administration’s priorities a month from now. It has a huge chilling effect.” HHS which oversees NIH, did not return a request for comment. He and other autism researchers say they worry about the effects of further Trump Administration cuts in their area. People with autism rely heavily on both special education and Medicaid, but the Trump Administration has vowed to get rid of the DOE, and Congress may have to consider cutting Medicaid funding to pay for tax cuts. “On the one hand, you are saying we want to help families of autistic kids,” Mandell says. “And on the other hand, you are taking away exactly the supports that these families most rely on.

Four House Democrats traveled to El Salvador on Monday to pressure President Nayib Bukele and the Trump administration to release Kilmar Ábrego García, a Maryland resident who was deported last month despite a federal court order protecting him from removal. But after being denied access to Ábrego García during their visit, the lawmakers said they were now demanding the Trump administration produce “daily proof of life,” as well as access to counsel and his immediate release. “Since we were not able to get the answers we need today from the embassy, we have written a letter just as of 30 minutes ago to Secretary of State Marco Rubio demanding daily proof of life for Mr. Ábrego García,” said Rep. Yassamin Ansari of Arizona, one of the House Democrats who traveled to the Central American country, at a press conference on Monday afternoon. “And of course, finally, demanding his safe return home.” The visit by the delegation—which included Reps. Robert Garcia of California, Maxwell Frost of Florida, Maxine Dexter of Oregon, and Ansari—is the latest effort by Democrats to bring attention to Ábrego García’s case, which some legal scholars say has brought the U.S. to the brink of a constitutional crisis. The Supreme Court this month ordered the federal government to “facilitate” Ábrego García’s return to the United States, but the Trump administration has declined to do so, citing lack of jurisdiction. The Democratic lawmakers said their request to see Ábrego García was denied by the Salvadorian government as it was not an official trip, though they did meet with the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador. “There is no reason for me to believe that the Trump administration is doing anything to facilitate his safe return home,” Ansari said. “And that is simply unacceptable.” The visit follows one last week by Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who after two days of negotiations was permitted to meet briefly with Ábrego García. Van Hollen described Ábrego García as “traumatized” from being held at the notorious CECOT maximum-security prison, where Bukele’s government houses alleged terrorists and gang members. Van Hollen said Ábrego García has since been transferred to a less severe detention center. But the photo of that encounter—showing Van Hollen and Ábrego García speaking across a table—has come under scrutiny from Democrats and his family’s legal team, who now question whether it was a staged photo opportunity by the Bukele government. “We know nothing of Mr. Ábrego García's whereabouts since the staged photo op on Thursday,” said Chris Newman, the attorney representing his family, at Monday’s press conference. “Unfortunately, we are no longer able to trust the representations about this case made either by the United States government or by the Salvadorian government." Ábrego García was deported on March 15, one of over 200 individuals swept up in a mass deportation order by the Trump administration. The administration invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify expedited removals, despite widespread legal challenges and mounting bipartisan concern over its use outside of wartime. Though Ábrego García entered the U.S. illegally years ago, a judge in 2019 granted him "withholding of removal" status, after determining that his fears of persecution if he were returned to El Salvador were credible. Nonetheless, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported him in March in what the Justice Department initially described as an “administrative error.” Since then, both a federal judge and the U.S. Supreme Court have affirmed that the government must help bring him back—a mandate that administration officials say they cannot fulfill without El Salvador’s cooperation. “If this can happen to Ábrego García it can happen to people from Venezuela…our constituents, and any day now, it can happen to citizens, because the President himself said that in the Oval Office,” Frost said. “This is a front to our laws, and that's why we're here.” Read More: Can a U.S. Citizen Be Deported? Trump’s Comments Raise Legal Alarms Republican leaders have accused Democrats of defending criminals, pointing to unverified allegations that Ábrego García is tied to MS-13. The White House referred to the Democrats’ visit as an “apology tour for a deported illegal immigrant gang member.” “Today, four more Democrats ... are in El Salvador, picking up their party’s mantle of prioritizing a deported illegal immigrant MS-13 gang member over the Americans they represent,” the White House said in a press release. Yet the only evidence produced linking Ábrego García to gang activity is a 2019 police report that has long been questioned in court. His family and attorneys have denied the claims, and judges reviewing his case have repeatedly upheld protections for him. Court documents reviewed by TIME found that Trump’s administration had a chance to challenge Ábrego García’s protection from deportation during his first term, but didn’t take it. Frost said their visit was in part to ensure that the public doesn’t forget about the Trump administration’s deportations: “They do so much to make sure people forget about them breaking the law, forget about them completely ignoring the Supreme Court,” he said. Democrats at the press conference also raised concerns about Andry José Hernández Romero, a Venezuelan asylum-seeker deported to El Salvador after the Trump administration accused him of gang affiliations based solely on his tattoos. Romero, a gay makeup artist, fled Venezuela fearing persecution and legally applied for asylum through a U.S. government app. “We know that he has had no gang affiliations that anyone is aware of, or that they presented in a court of law,” Garcia said. “This is our plea to the Embassy here—confirm that he is alive.” The Democratic lawmakers say they requested an official congressional delegation (CODEL) to visit both men, but House Oversight Chair James Comer and Homeland Security Chair Mark Green, both Republicans, denied the request, citing costs and accusing Democrats of defending gang members. “No Democrat has been allowed to go [on official delegations],” Garcia said. “There have been CODELs that have just been Republican members of Congress only.” Jennifer Vasquez Sura, the wife of Ábrego García, said in a statement that she was “deeply grateful” that four members of Congress had arrived in the country to push for her husband’s release from prison, and that she was concerned about his health. “Their presence sends a powerful message: The fight to bring Kilmar home isn’t over,” she said, adding, “We need Congress to keep showing up.” Frost added that more lawmakers will be visiting El Salvador soon to keep a spotlight on the issue. “We're not going to be the last members of Congress and senators that are here to make sure that he's released,” he said. “The book is not closed on our Constitution and our laws—no matter what Donald Trump says.”

Pope Francis passed away at age 88 on April 21, just a day after an Easter Sunday appearance at St. Peter’s Square, where he gave well-wishes to thousands of Catholic supporters. The Vatican said Monday that Francis died after a stroke. Born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Francis was elected Pope in 2013 after his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI became the first Pope to resign in about 600 years. Francis, chosen as TIME’s 2013 Person of the Year, became the first Latin American pontiff when he took the reins of the religious institution. Over his term, Francis became known for his humility and calls for peace during major global challenges, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the Gaza humanitarian crisis. As the world mourns Francis and commemorates his life’s legacy, his death also kickstarts a leadership transition period at the Vatican known as the interregnum, during which there is no Pope in power (referred to as sede vacante, or the “vacant seat”). Here’s what to know about how the next Pope will be selected—and who some of the frontrunners are. What happens when a Pope dies? After the Pope dies, the Vatican’s traditional nine days of mourning called the novendiales begin. The election of a new Pope begins between 15 to 20 days after the death. The camerlengo, a cardinal in the Catholic Church, is in charge of organizing the election in a process known as the conclave, which was recently dramatized in the award-winning 2024 film Conclave. Cardinals are special bishops and other Vatican officials who serve as the Pope’s counselors and visually distinguish themselves with a red cloak. There are more than 250 total cardinals, all of whom are men and most of whom come from Europe, according to the Vatican. While all cardinals can participate in the daily meetings that occur prior to the election, only 120 cardinals—all of whom have to be under the age of 80—can actually vote in the conclave. It is not clear how the 120 voters are selected. In December, Francis appointed 21 new Cardinals, hailing from six different continents and many of whom reflect more modern and progressive ideals, such as support for inclusivity of LGBTQ+ Catholics, according to NPR. Overall, it is believed that Francis will have personally selected about 80% of those who will choose his successor. Typically, the electorate holds a mass to ask for spiritual guidance before the papal election takes place, according to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). How does the voting process work? At the Vatican, the electors stay in the Domus Sanctae Marthae. It’s where Francis chose to live, in a two-room suite, rather than the posh papal apartments of the Apostolic Palace. Typically, the electorate begins its work with a mass to ask for spiritual guidance, according to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The conclave is an act of supreme secrecy. Vatican City becomes extremely regulated, as cardinals are not permitted to communicate with anyone “outside the area where the election is taking place, except in cases of proven and urgent necessity,” per the Apostolic Constitution. Following the funeral rites and mass for a deceased Pope, the electors then process to the Sistine Chapel, where they take an oath of discretion, and close the doors to the public. Electors all vote secretly via ballots that read in summum pontificem, or “I elect as supreme pontiff. ”The twice-folded ballots are placed in urns and counted by three cardinals chosen by a random draw from the electors to be scrutineers. Votes are then recorded and read aloud to all cardinals present. The process continues until a candidate receives two-thirds of the vote, per USCCB. The process is governed by the Vatican constitution known in Latin as Universi Dominici Gregis, or “the Lord’s whole flock.” First issued by St. John Paul II in 1996, it used to allow for a new pope to be elected by a simple majority—rather than two-thirds—after 33 rounds of ballots starting on the second day of the conclave. But it was amended by Benedict XVI to remove the provision in 2007. Instead, a long-drawn conclave would be decided by a runoff between the top two candidates (that excludes the two candidates from voting) until one receives a two-thirds majority. The public is kept abreast of the voting process through smoke signals created by the burning of ballots. White smoke means that cardinals have selected a new Pope, while black smoke means another round of voting has to take place. Once the conclave elects a Pope, the dean of the College of Cardinals—currently, Italian Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re—asks him if he accepts the title, and the candidate is dressed and picks his papal name before he walks out to the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica. There, the senior cardinal deacon—who at the time of Francis’ death was French Cardinal Dominique Mamberti—tells the crowd assembled below, “Habemus Papam,” (Latin for “we have a Pope”) and introduces the Church’s new leader by the name he has chosen. Who is eligible to become the next Pope? The College of Cardinal’s Report, a website aimed at providing more information on potential successors, has identified 22 cardinals who it believes are “papabili,” or most likely to be elected Pope. Some of the qualities a cardinal considered papabili should possess include humility, zeal for the Catholic faith, and the promotion of goodness, according to the report. “But predicting the next Pope is notoriously precarious and he may be none of those we propose,” it caveats. Pope Francis, for example, was not on many papabili lists in 2013, because many considered him to be too old. Despite calls for greater leadership opportunities for women within the Catholic Church during last year’s synod, a summit among Catholic leaders, women are still ineligible to be ordained as priests and therefore are also ineligible for the papacy. While not explicitly outlined in any specific Church regulations, every Pope has had the status of a cardinal before they took their role as pontiff. Here are some of the most discussed candidates who may be considered to be the next Pope: Jean-Marc Aveline Jean-Marc Aveline, 66, is well-known for his support for migrants. That stance is personal, as the cardinal himself fled his home due to war when he was just four years old. His family eventually settled in Marseille, France, a city with a substantial Muslim population, making him keen to interfaith dialogues. Aveline has a doctorate in theology. He is reportedly Pope Francis’ “favorite” possible successor, according to the College of Cardinals Report, though he differs from Francis in that he expressed caution at blessings for same-sex couples, as opposed to individuals. Joseph Tobin Joseph Tobin, 72, is a highly progressive candidate for the Church and has amassed substantial influence in the U.S. Tobin has voiced avid support for LGBTQ+ Catholics, women in the Church, and migrants, even going against then-Indiana Gov. Mike Pence over the politician’s efforts to stop the resettlement of Syrian refugees. He previously worked in the role of a second-in-command of the Vatican office before his current role as the Archbishop of Newark, New Jersey. In that position, he’s dealt with the high-profile Theodore McCarrick sexual assault scandal. Juan Jose Omella Juan Jose Omella, 79, worked as an advisor to Pope Francis prior to his passing. The Spanish cardinal earned his red cloak just one year after he was given the title of archbishop. He has spoken strongly against abortion, but has made controversial comments regarding reports of sexual abuse within the Catholic Chruch in Spain, calling the estimated figures that fell in the hundreds of thousands “lies.” He followed that by saying that “We will not tire of asking for forgiveness from the victims and working for their healing.” Omella studied theology and philosophy at the Seminary of Zaragoza. Pietro Parolin Italian Pietro Parolin, 70, has been serving as the Vatican’s Secretary of State since 2013 and is the highest-ranking cardinal in the electing conclave. He is considered an expert on a number of geo-political issues. From 2002 to 2009, he was undersecretary of state for Relations with States and directed relations with Vietnam, North Korea, Israel, and China. Péter Erdő Péter Erdő, 72, would be a more conservative pick for the top post. In 2003, at 51, the Hungarian national was made one of the Church’s youngest cardinals after being appointed by John Paul II. He has opposed divorced and remarried individuals taking communion, believing that marriage is indissoluble, and is against same-sex marriage. His stance on immigration, a key issue in Hungary, has also come under fire in the past: he once compared taking in refugees to human smuggling, but is said to have changed his stance after a meeting with Pope Francis, who was much more liberal on issues of immigration and refugees. Peter Turkson Peter Turkson, 76, would be a progressive pick for the Church. Turkson, an archbishop from Ghana, was first named cardinal by Pope John Paul II in 2003. Turkson was selected by Pope Francis to help lead special assemblies advocating for development in the pan-Amazon region, and a council for justice and peace. In March, the University of Dayton announced that Turkson would be receiving an honorary doctorate this year, calling him a “tireless advocate for the poor and marginalized, championing the cause of human dignity.” At least six other colleges have also recognized him with an honorary doctorate. Luis Antonio Tagle If elected, Luis Antonio Tagle, 67, of the Philippines, would be the first modern-day Asian Pope. Currently serving as pro-prefect of the Dicastery for Evangelization, Tagle is more left-leaning, having spoken out against the isolating impact of the Church’s harsh language against same-sex marriage. “Yes, I think even the language has changed already, the harsh words that were used in the past to refer to gays and divorced and separated people, the unwed mothers etc, in the past they were quite severe,” he said in 2015. “Many people who belonged to those groups were branded and that led to their isolation from the wider society. Mario Grech Mario Grech, 68, is the secretary general of the Synod. The Malta-born cardinal has expressed his disapproval of divorce and in vitro fertilization, but in the same breath called on the Catholic church to accept divorced and gay couples. The Church should be “an experience of God” instead of a “moral agency” he told the Sunday Times of Malta in a 2015 interview. Under his current role in the church, Grech was in charge of overseeing the Synod of Synodality—when religious leaders gather to consult on the future direction of the Church—making him well-connected among bishops and cardinals. He has been outspoken in his support of migrants, calling on Europe to better address the humanitarian issue at-hand. He added: “It is also important in such a delicate sector not to allow institutional discrimination between the well-off foreigners and the poor, those coming from the East and those coming from Africa.” Matteo Maria Zuppi Italian Matteo Maria Zuppi, 69, has taken the lead from Francis in his attempts to foster a more inclusive environment within the church. He served as special envoy to Russia and Ukraine, and has engaged in dialogue with leaders in Kyiv, Moscow, Washington D.C., the West Bank, and Beijing. He has been open about his acceptance of homosexuality and is also supportive of prisoners rights and the abolition of the death penalty, and in June 2023 he called for a “legal system that guarantees protection and welcome for all.”

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox. Aboard Air Force One back in January, Joe Biden must have wondered if the cosmos was conspiring against him. With just a few days left in office, Biden had hoped to fulfill a personal wish: one last presidential meeting with Pope Francis. As Biden flew back from a California besieged by a fast-growing series of wildfires, he dialed into a meeting underway with aides huddled around a conference table back in the West Wing. The trip out West went about as off-schedule as any presidential trip could, with detours and delays plaguing their plans. Now, they were discussing his upcoming three-day trip to Europe, which was set to include time for Biden to surprise Francis with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor. But the crisis situation on the West Coast had now made the notion of Biden leaving the country politically untenable. When he returned to the White House that evening, he told aides to scrap the planned trip, which was due to start the next day. Biden personally called Pope Francis to explain the situation and inform him that he would be receiving an unexpected honor by way of the Vatican’s diplomatic reps in Washington. It was that last conversation, on Jan. 11, that stung the President particularly hard, according to two people who were involved in that decision. The Pope is now back on Biden’s agenda, but in a very different way. The leader of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics died Monday, less than a month after a lengthy hospital stay for pneumonia. Biden—only the second Catholic to serve as President and one who still celebrates Mass most weekends—will likely want to attend Francis’ funeral, according to those in his inner circle. The politics of that might get tricky, as it’s not at all clear whether the current President has any interest in paying respects to a spiritual leader with whom he repeatedly clashed. The funeral of a Pope—especially the first from the Americas, not to mention the first Jesuit—tends to be one of those events that dominates the diplomatic calendar. Its significance is up there with the deaths of icons like Nelson Mandela or a British monarch. It’s a moment that demands delicacy, and that is not exactly a skillset radiating from those in power in Official Washington. In the early days of Donald Trump’s first presidential campaign, Trump seemed to relish picking a fight with Francis—who was on his way to visit the United States with Biden as his de facto chaperone—suggesting the pontiff was weak and was offering an opening for ISIS to take over the Vatican. During the 2016 South Carolina primary, Trump and the Pope got into a full-blown skirmish from afar, with Francis questioning if Trump was even Christian and the real estate tycoon suggesting the pontiff was a tool of the Mexican government. (Trump’s aides eventually convinced him the fight was not a net gain as he tried to convince voters of faith to take a chance on the thrice-married billionaire.) The rift continued through Trump’s first term, although the pair’s meeting during Trump’s first foreign trip in office went pleasantly enough. Pope Francis, born in Buenos Aires to an Italian family fleeing fascism in Mussolini’s era, had little regard to Trump’s hard-line immigration views and never shied from criticizing his plans for a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border. “Builders of walls sow fear,” Pope Francis said during a visit to Panama. On a flight back from another trip, he told reporters that border walls were not the answer: “Those who build walls will become prisoners of the walls they put up.” The enmity did not fade. Earlier this year, Trump’s top enforcer on border issues, Tom Homan, suggested the Pope was a hypocrite. "They have a wall around the Vatican. If you illegally enter the Vatican, the crime is serious. You'll be charged with a serious crime and jailed," Homan said. Trump’s nominee to be his Ambassador to the Vatican, Brian Burch, has been a partisan operative and vocal papal critic, making it an awkward fit if he is confirmed as expected. On another timeline, the White House might have made better use of Vice President J.D. Vance, who was baptized as a Catholic in 2019, to smooth things over with one of the world’s top religious leaders. But Vance’s aggressive cheerleading of Trump’s policies complicated that approach, so much so that Pope Francis dressed-down U.S. Bishops in a letter in February for not doing more to object to Vance’s defense of the deportation program on theological grounds. The skirmish continued, with Cardinal Timothy Dolan denouncing Vance’s suggestions that financial incentives were behind Catholic bishops’ defense of migrants as “nasty.” On Sunday, the day before Francis’ passing, Vance exchanged Easter greetings with an ailing Pope. Vance’s motorcade, according to the Associated Press, was on Vatican territory for just 17 minutes. Contrast all that to Biden, who met three times with Francis while Biden spent eight years as Vice President and twice when he became President. During a 2021 visit, the pair spent an astonishing 90 minutes together as aides from both delegations kept looking at each other, as if to ask which side wanted to interrupt the bosses. Those close to Biden say his humility toward Francis is genuine, with Biden often reminding his priest pals here in the United States that the Pope himself referred to him as a “good Catholic.” The last trip to the Vatican was meant as a reward for both men, who recognize they are often out-of-step with those around them and too often counted out. Biden advisers say the boss and the Pope would occasionally trade phone calls, often with informal gut-checks and spiritual check-ins. In a December call, the Pope lobbied Biden to soften death-row sentences for convicts. Biden ultimately commuted the sentences of 37 of the 40 people on federal death row, tampering Trump’s plans to resume executions once back in office. There were no immediate details about Trump’s plans around the funeral. (Francis revised his funeral plans last year to be buried in Santa Maria Maggiore basilica, not in the grottoes beneath St. Peter’s Basilica where most Popes find their final resting place.) State affairs like a papal funeral typically bring even warring political rivals together. When Mandela passed away in 2013, then-President Barack Obama invited former President George W. Bush to join him on a whirlwind trip to South Africa where they were on the ground for just 13 hours. Even though Obama spent much of his 2008 presidential campaign eviscerating Bush, the two men were professional enough to bury the hatchet; Bush even showed off some of his post-White House paintings from his iPad, and Laura Bush, Michelle Obama, and Hillary Clinton all made pleasant conversations in the Air Force One conference room. Trump is no Obama, to put it mildly. Trump’s capacity for grievance knows no limit, throwing uncertainty over whether he is willing to travel to attend Francis’ funeral. The prospect of him viewing Biden’s possible effort to attend in a positive light seems improbable. So, in an unexpected way, Pope Francis one last time is holding a mirror up to this world and forcing us to take a look at two very different Presidents who represent vastly different approaches to the job. In the incumbent, there is a figure who has little regard for anyone who dares question his infallibility. In the former, there lies a sorrowed soul who thought of the Pope as the ultimate counselor to a President who wanted advice on what doing the right thing looked like in practice. In those two pews, America’s civic religion shows itself, with Biden and Trump clearly sitting on different sides of the chapel.